Years Go By, Memories Linger On

I can remember that day.  It was a warm, sunny and eventful day for myself, as I was into my second week of being a student at Hofstra University.  I had morning classes, and had just finished an English Literature course which would be followed by a Political Science course.  It was about 9:30 am that I and my fellow students and professors heard the first reports of two passenger airliners crashing into both World Trade Center towers.  None of us in the room knew what to make of the events, although for myself I did remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  So for me it did not come as much of a surprise to hear of a second incident, this time more fatal than the first.  After a few minutes of discussion regarding our thoughts on the developing matter, a student in the nearby building barged in to announce that a plane had crashed the Pentagon.  There were unconfirmed reports of a bombing in the Washington Monument and a car bomb going off at the State Department; thankfully those turned out to be false.

We and others went to the nearby Bits N' Bytes on campus to watch the news reports coming in.  When I got there, the South Tower collapsed 1 minute later.  Within less than a half hour after that, the North Tower collapsed. All told, with the WTC, Pentagon and a plane crash in Shankesville, Pennsylvania; some 3,000 or so people lost their lives that day.  This included hundreds of NYPD and FDNY officials. The date has been etched in my memory for the last 15 years; September 11, 2001.  I personally did not lose anyone that was family or close friends that day, yet I knew of far too many that faced an irreparable loss.  My father, who had only retired from the FDNY two years prior,  lost several firefighters that he personally knew, including at least a select few from his same ladder company.

For myself, I got home at my usual time, and got back to attending classes the next day.  Life went on, although my perspective of life had irreversibly changed on 911.  I suppose for many, including those younger than me, a day such as the one 15 years ago had its purpose and is looked at as part of a history lesson: maybe life to them has always felt the way it seems now.  Yet, I guess you would have needed to be there during the years, months and even days before 911.  Bill Maher in his book of essays "When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden" I think put the 10 years or so before 911 to its proper meaning; the Seinfeld decade.  Yes, much like the famed Jerry Seinfeld sitcom, the era 1991-2001 was one of trends and scandals and ideals and innovations that, with few exceptions, did not matter in the slightest.  How low did it get?  In my opinion, 1998 was the nadir, a year in which the world and particularly Americans were so fixated on President Bill Clinton's affairs with other women.  In case you forgot, Pres. Clinton was impeached though not convicted for lying to a purported grand jury over an extramarital relationship (which was just oral sex) that any sane person would also deny until caught red handed.  As a confirmation of the abject stupidity of the year, Time Magazine had as its People of the Year not only Pres. Clinton, yet also Kenneth Starr; the independent counsel and Iran-Contra figure who quickly faded into academia obscurity.

Well, if the 90's were the Seinfeld decade, it can be said that 911 was the Seinfeld series finale.  All those incidents that were trivial came to nip us in the bud, and the consequences of our collective carelessness came to fruition that day.  For myself, the rest of 2001 was in effect my social political and economic awakening.  I had realized that all I was interested in, from the Clinton sex scandals to the Rep. Gary Condit incident to which politician had an interest in pop culture, meant not one thing.  I had probably started the awakening earlier in the year when I registered to vote and started watching Meet The Press with Tim Russert every Sunday, though I was in that phase of in one ear and out the other with the issues at hand.  That all changed after that September morning.  Many that know me know my ideas and beliefs regarding 911 and the years afterwards.  I am not here to regurgitate what I am aware of and what I feel on this matter.  I will mention that on every Election Day from 2001 onward, and on many Primary Days in recent years, I have voted.  For every elective office and proposition on any given ballot.  And I'm voting this Election Day as well.

The 2016 election however has been concerning to say the least.  Not least of which is the growing reality of a low turnout followed by a perceived apathy among the voting public.  And if it is not apathy, it is certainly a desire to be selfish in approach and temerity.  I am not pleased with this degradation of the issues both foreign and domestic that need to affect a campaign for any elected office.  Believe me, many may not care; but there are those that will do the caring for them, and will inevitably make life worse for the uncaring.  If that means the United States loses its influence on geopolitical issues to a number of developing countries, then that is the fate the US has chosen.

Of all the purported lessons and legacies 911 was supposed to exemplify, none that have appeared in nearly all publications and media are feasible and none are worthwhile.  For myself, 911 provided only one lesson to be learned, though it is a big lesson:  we have been and continue to be willingly conned.  When we stop caring, we should not be surprised that the void left in the socio-political structure will be filled by people and ideas that do not give a flying fig about you.  I am sadly seeing this again, which in these times will lead the populace on a path to ruin.  That is what we should remember when we remember 9 11.  Simply stated, all need to be aware and involved in our social political and economic world of whom we are and what we need to become.  We would be living in a better and more humane world if people stopped caring about their trivial matters and started focusing on the betterment of all in their lives and those that will come after we leave.

As a unique addition to this blog, which I need to write on more often, I can remember a time when popular music and rock music took stands on issues that needed to be addressed.  I rarely hear anything close to a protest song these days.  Here are some that I can remember hearing after 911 and the years that followed which mattered for me in artists stating the truth.

And of course many more .

Not the end of the matter, only the beginning,

Robert

Before the broadcast: Revolt of the Inductees.

Codifying an art form into legitimacy is in theory an interesting way of at least allowing the art form to become highbrow culture.  One way to do this is by presenting awards and treasures for what we may consider the best in one's respective fields and ideals.  In effect, the highbrow worlds intertwining business, commerce, governance, academia, history and medicine can use their theoretical stamps of approval on one such aspect of pop culture.  Rock and Roll and/or Pop Music is one such field.  How do you know if what you are seeing and hearing is Rock and Pop?  Well, I tend to agree with David Byrne when he mentions that a rock concert has so many interactions going on with the artists and audiences involved.  If you are required to attend in formal attire and play the music with notation in hand; not to mention make no personal gestures between audience and artists and, most importantly, do not make the show unique in your own way if dealing with no longer living writers; then you are watching a classical performance.  Which by the way is quite fine, albeit much of the music and performances you will see and hear resonate from a time long gone and rather ancient.

There may come a time when certain forms of contemporary songwriting and music playing is given the same revenance and acquired taste given in classical music.  I suspect we are seeing that somewhat in Jazz music of the big band era (Glenn Miller, the Dorsey Brothers) and Broadway show tunes.  And yet, the Rock and Roll era has been around since the early blues era of the 1930's and has no sign of slowing down.  It does show signs of changing formats and popularity, but the idea of the now still stands.  So you can imagine what we collectively feel at this time every year when the annual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony comes around.  And in 2016, this was the induction ceremony when the inductees that appeared more or less told the Nominating Committee, Jann Wenner, Play-Tone (Tom Hanks' production company) and the sponsors to go screw themselves with the rough end of a pineapple.

Yes, it actually happened, and apparently the brass at the RRHOF are unable to do a thing about it.  This year inducted were N.W.A. (I assume Dr. Dre will be inducted on his own later on), Deep Purple, Steve Miller, Chicago, Cheap Trick and Bert Berns (1929-1967).  I would like to focus on the leading four inductees in 2016 for this essay.  Each of them had issues with the Hall this year. The family of Bert Berns did not have any issues pertaining to Berns' posthumous induction, nor did Cheap Trick have any explicit problems.  I will say that Cheap Trick guitarist Rick Nielsen did thank the Rock Hall for limiting the amount of tickets so that Nielsen's family did not need to find seating for what will be his 9 grandchildren.

Perhaps the most obvious band drama this year came from Chicago.  You would not think this would be the case, seeing that many of the band members are still together after some 49 years in the business.  Well, just for a moment forget about who showed up and notice who was not there.  Many of you will say Terry Kath, and of course you would be right; although his daughter did accept the award on his behalf.  Mind you, Terry Kath died in a tragic accident in 1978.

I'm namely referring to Peter Cetera in who did not show up.  Knowing Chicago's history and a great deal of what went down with Cetera and the rest of the band during the 1980's, it was a certainty that he would not show up.  You can't say Peter Cetera didn't try to get a reunion going.  However, it appears that issues stemming from their 1981-1985 era when David Foster was their producer and collaborated with Cetera on songwriting, not to mention their resurgence of the time, is still a mixed blessing on the rest of the band's part.  Rightly or wrongly, that era did happen; and rightly or wrongly, Chicago has not been the same since Terry Kath died and Peter Cetera left.  I am also aware that financially Cetera is wealthier than the current version of Chicago put together.  So jealousy abounds.

If any band inducted this year were known to have personality issues, it would have to have been Deep Purple.  Let's get this out of the way: Ritchie Blackmore did not show up.  Apparently Blackmore did not consider the idea of showing up, nor did the current band want him there.  And yes, Rod Evans wasn't there either, Mr. Evans wouldn't be caught dead as it were showing his face in public relating to anything Deep Purple; not after the fake Deep Purple of 1980.  None the less, it appeared that the producers of the show and the RRHOF basically wanted to induct Deep Purple first and shorten the speeches of the living inductees who were there and limit the amount of songs to perform just to get it over with.  Glenn Hughes has come out and pretty much confirmed these theories.

N.W.A. did show up, including Dr. Dre for the first of what will be 2 inductions (Dre will go in on his own a couple years from now as a Non-Performer).  The living inductees were willing to perform with someone well known doing Eazy-E's impressive rapping.  However, the Rock Hall and the producers of the show had other ideas as to how performances and reservations would be approached.  Needless to say, both sides were at an impasse; and as is customary in certain matters, N.W.A. accepted and gave their speeches yet did not perform.

Okay, so issues with bands and groups; not a surprise.  It does become a surprise when an issue arrives regarding an individual artist.  In this year, Steve Miller may have done us all a great service.  Though quite honored and accepting of the induction, Steve Miller did expose a number of odd choices and hypocritical matters pertaining to how the RRHOF operates and the issues regarding the induction ceremony.

This was during the induction acceptance speech. After performing, Miller had some words to say in a press interview.

There has indeed been more to discuss about the events and revelations from last week, both from Steve Miller and regarding the flawed structure of the Nominating Committee and the voting process at large.  In a later essay, one in which I will cross-post alongside my involvement with the Future Rock legends website, a lot more will be said regarding how to effectively reform the RRHOF.  I think in essence it needs to be similar to how we at FRL promote our Revisited/Projected Rock Hall Project.

Tune in to this station,

Robert

Throwing It All Away: Sports Edition

Thanksgiving 2009: it was not a great Thanksgiving on a personal level, as it was the first Thanksgiving since my parents made it known to me and my brothers that they were separating.  It also came at a pretty low point in my life: a time which changed a year later once I received my first paying job.  None the less, 7 years have passed and Thanksgivings since then have been quite wonderful.  This is despite my parents not being together.  Thanksgiving 2009 may have been a bad day for myself and my loved ones; yet for someone else that day was a day of no turning back.

It is now the weekend of the Masters tournament, perhaps the most impressive PGA Tour event that takes place in the United States.  The weekend also correlates with my mother's birthday, who has now turned 60 years old.  So obviously, as was the case earlier in the year when  my father turned 60, I find it more important to celebrate a milestone for my parents.  Even so, there have been times this weekend that I have been looking at the results of this year's Masters.  And it looks impressive, as right now Jordan Spieth may be on his way to a second consecutive green jacket; an impressive feat for a golfer younger than me and quite possibly destined to become much like is golfing idol, one Eldrick Tont "Tiger" Woods.

I remember when he came onto the professional golf scene back in 1996.  Woods had been the most celebrated amateur and wunderkind in the game since Bobby Jones.  Seeing an opportunity after winning three straight U.S. Amateurs and the NCAA Golf Championship, Tiger Woods turned pro in 1996 at age 20.  Immediately, Woods became the dominant golfer of his time.  I can easily remember a Sunday in 1997 when my family from my father's side and I were watching the Masters.  It was a game for the ages, when Tiger Woods won his first of 14 majors convincingly. We were all impressed  with this budding and gifted athlete and an impressive beginning to a dominant and lucrative era in golf.

As the years went on, Tiger Woods went on to define the late 1990's and 2000's in athletics.  To list his accomplishments on this blog would take a while, and by now you already know of the accomplishments.  Yet, Tiger Woods has been in a professional slump after an impressive 2013 season where he had five PGA wins.  Injuries have taken a toll, along with a younger crop of golfers and several chokes on the golf course.  Right now, Woods has 79 PGA Tour wins, second only to Sam Snead with 82; and he has won 14 Majors, second only to Jack Nicklaus.  Quite honestly, Tiger Woods would have surpassed those records by now.  And yet, those records seem more out of reach than at any point of time in his life.

So what happened?  Well, Bill Simmons in his essay collection The Book Of Basketball (2009) had mentioned in his ranking of Chris Webber as the 72nd greatest basketball player a reasoning as to why Mr Webber did not go far in his potential.  Simmons believes that at a certain point, as early as the 1993 NCAA Championship Game when Michigan lost to North Carolina, Chris Webber felt the need to have a do-over in his approach to the game .  Well, life is not like a video game; there cannot be a reset button nor even a chance to shut off the console or computer when things do not go the way it is supposed to.  I feel that Tiger Woods would like to have a do-over or rather a mulligan on that Thanksgiving night in 2009.  In particular, I think he would like to go back and not get into that car crash just outside his house after arguing with his wife and mother of his children Elin Nordgren when she found out about Woods' affairs and sex addiction.

I know when news broke of the car crash that it just seemed so bizarre and unseemly for Tiger Woods.  Many those first couple of days were asking what happened.  Well, grappling with the separation of my parents I knew what exactly happened immediately.  And so indeed did many observers.  Relations he had fell apart, and Woods was in need of putting the needs of his children first.  It is to Tiger Woods' credit that he has become a doting and important father .

Yet in the golf world and the world at large, Woods' car crash and reduction to merely good golfer and for three years now a relic and cautionary tale was unprecedented.  Now, years before I and others saw something similar with David Duval winning the Open Championship in 2001 and completely collapsing in his professional career.  We felt that golf wise, Duval had it all and he threw it away.  Perhaps we now feel the same regarding Tiger Woods.  There is surprisingly a good deal of personal similarities Duval and Woods have; not least of which is them being doting and important fathers nowadays.  I suppose though golf without Tiger Woods is becoming more and more a reality that we may need to face.

An athlete's peak and winning streak will end eventually.  None the less, I would hate to be the one that says the best golfer in my lifetime failed to live up to his potential.  Yet, what do we expect when we see our athletic greats as real life superheroes. disillusionment is inevitable when the one who can do no wrong is found to be a mere flawed human not unlike ourselves.

Catch up with you soon,

Robert

2016: The Grand Theft Auto election

These past few weeks have been rather problematic and somewhat difficult to write about.  You see, I am a Democrat, and have been one since I turned 18 years old back in 2001.  Each year for the last 18 years, I have voted every Election Day, and recently in a many Democratic primaries in New York,  I can remember the first person I voted for was Thomas Suozzi for Nassau County Executive. I was very proud and satisfied with that vote; and I hope to be satisfied this November when Mr. Suozzi hopefully gets elected to Congress, likely in turn deposing Republican Rep. Peter King.

And yet, something has changed rather drastically in this concurrent election cycle.  The Republican party seems to be turning more populist and leftward; the Democratic party feels like it is coasting by.  Perhaps we are assuming a victory for Sen. Hillary Clinton is a given, at least that was the intention as early as a year ago.  An so, I am left every week looking at primary results and just being flabbergasted.  Sure, Sec. of State Clinton is leading the Democratic primary results.  But as we all know, Donald John Trump (I will not mention his whole name henceforth:) is leading the polling , the raw votes, and the amount of states and delegates won for the Republican primary.  At this stage in the election, Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee, as certain as Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.  We will then, as a nation, be in uncharted territory.  The likelihood of a Clinton victory is lessened when Trump is in the picture.

How did this come to be?  I have y reasons, some of which I feel need to be shown by me posting a video one day.  None the less, I have begun noticing some truths and ideals being presented regarding our lives through rather unique means.  One of the better social and political commentaries utilized has been the Grand Theft Auto games.  Most recently, there is Grand Theft Auto V and GTA Online, a game I got for Christmas 2014 and still have yet to finish.  Sorry to say that; gaming is an interest, not my life.  What I have gone through either by playing the game or watching YouTube videos is a startling discovery on the Donald Trump campaign.  In my opinion, Donald Trump reminds me in one form or another of Jack Howitzer.

For those unaware, Jack Howitzer is basically the one important celebrity in the GTA universe who has never gotten over the end of the 80s and early 90s.  In one of the better non-gaming elements in GTA V, you can watch TV and see Jack Howitzer in a reality show attempting, and failing I might add, in staging a comeback.  At one point, his agent says that some of his ideas for a movie will not work and that it is not the 1980s anymore.  Howitzer's response is funny yet sad:

"The 80s are never over.  I'll say when the 80s are over.  The 80s are never over.  You just don't turn off the 80s!"

In point of fact, did I not tell you that Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman were bound to do a CNN documentary miniseries about the 80s, since the 60s and 70s were already done?  Well, it is happening and will be televised later next month.  It seems for many the 80s were the halcyon days.  I am here to point out that days and eras of the past were not always that good.  Indeed, tomorrow is not as bad as it seems.

Yet, Donald Trump, along with many of his supporters and others intrigued by him, feel they want to return to a bygone past that resembles the 1980s for all intents and purposes.  And whether that be in the business and junk bond prototype, the redneck prototype, the corporate Hollywood prototype, or as is quite likely the Miami Vice/Scarface prototype; people are lusting for this past.

I suppose we all can understand why.  Go for a walk in your neighborhood and you will see a microcosm of the haves, the have-mores and the never-will-haves.  There is an increasing amount of the latter category the deeper one looks. People in that category were sold from birth to now the concept of "The American Dream".  In short, if one works hard, sacrifices as much as can be, and is obedient to many; financial and emotional success will come.  Well, we all know it is a lie.  In the structure that the United States is governed today, many will be sold a bill of goods promising everything and delivering little.  The best we can do for our selves and our loved ones is to follow the paths that have been both chosen for us and we ultimately decided to embark upon.  More importantly, being educated and becoming smart will go a long way in living a better life.

With little to do and practically nothing to show, what can those at the bottom of the food chain do?  Well, not much that will not eventually harm them and their loved ones.  Do not be alarmed when I say this: it becomes easy for someone to have unprotected sex, self-medicate with alcohol and unregulated drugs, steal money, get involved with petty crimes, turn rightward in social-political thought, become more greedy and protective of assets, and quite honestly make life a miserable hell for themselves and their loved ones.  Not all that I have mentioned will happen; but at least one will, if even only for a brief time.

This however is nothing new.  A fragile economy, distrust in leadership, threats of wars and chaos, and an overall fear of changes will cause people to react, and not in a manner that will be evolving. The reaction, if I were to put a visual aide to this, would be as follows:

For those unaware, this is video of a young woman on the autistic spectrum having a meltdown.  For people on the spectrum such as myself, these sorts of actions are not condoned but are always bubbling under the surface. There is of course no excuse for this behavior, yet at times it cannot be helped but to let it happen.

Many in this life are prone to these sort of meltdowns, albeit not in the way that is much too obvious.  A simple vote of refusal to submit to a changing world, or at worst an out-and-out revolt involving violence, is the more sophisticated format of a tantrum.  And since violence is never the answer, voting for a reactionary conservative party and its people is the equivalent of a personal meltdown.  It goes deeper than these reactionary measures.  In short, many would like to subconsciously return to their childhood and their perceived innocence.  Point being, the conservative movement can trace its individual origins to a certain point in a person's life when criticism and consequences were not life altering.  Be honest with yourself; it has always felt this way.

The 2016 election for the American Presidency has been one in which sadly all political parties are pandering to the idea of a better tomorrow with little sacrifice and consequence.  Obviously, the Democratic primaries are a lot more realistic in telling prospective voters the truth.  The Republican Party is offering their prospective voters an I.O.U. which will not be enacted upon.

As I write this, it has been a little under 18 hours since the false-flag attack at an airport in Belgium.  Already both leading parties and their front runners are asking for increased military and counter-intelligence to combat this purported terrorism: although I agree with Sec. of State Hillary Clinton that we should not be demeaning an entire religion and its practitioners.  Donald Trump and Sen Ted Cruz on the other hand have been condemning innocents in each of their own unique styles.  Each time a false-flag inside job happens, we need to ask: who benefits?  I am sad to say that each time, who benefits are the war profiteers and their enablers mainly in the Republican Party.  It only adds to the conservative mindset that is bent on enforcing their will and their leaders on us all by Election Day.  I am particularly concerned that there will not be an election in which domestic and everyday life issues will be at the forefront: we know that on those all too immediate issues, the Democratic Party will win.  Once division and fear are presented, the Republican Party eventually wins.  We cannot have that happen.  And neither should we be allowing the internet media tell us otherwise and go all out for Trump.  Now, I find Donald Trump preferable to all other Republicans for sure; that does not mean I will vote for him.  Yet I think there will be many that will, although I can be sure in the immediate aftermath of a plausible Trump Presidency that regret and shame will take place within a year.  That is if there is no false flag in the interim.

My thoughts, prayers, and condolences go to the 35 or so individuals that were killed in this false-flag attack and the loved ones they have left behind.  As well, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford passed away today at 46 after suffering from cancer these past two years.  I was never a fan of Councilman Ford's politics and really felt he could be an asshole at times.  Heck, Mayor Rob Ford may have paved the way for Donald Trump to be where he is now.  None the less, Mayor Ford was an entertaining figure, and will be missed.

At least these infamous times did not involve the nuclear football.

More coming, stay tuned,

Robert

PS.  Please vote in the New York Primaries on April 19.  The stakes are too high to not be involved.

Oscars 2016: the unintentional CB4 sequel

Way back in 1993, just after departing Saturday Night Live, Chris Rock starred in and co-wrote a pretty underrated comedy/musical on the hip-hop/r & b music scene of the day; not to mention a look at African-American culture as perceived by black people thinking of how white people saw them.  It was named CB4; and was ostensibly a parody and homage to Dr. Dre and N.W.A and Public Enemy along with other like minded artists.  Typical of audiences at the time, CB4 was give good write up yet meager box office.  It did not even matter that Phil Hartman was in this movie, as were a litany of important African-American celebrities.  Few Caucasian audiences saw CB4, nor even bothered to understand the social commentary within the laughter.

So we flash forward 23 years, and it is the night of the 88th annual Oscars, or Academy Awards if you are more perfunctory.  I watched it, and I was quite impressed with Chris Rock throughout the night.  I also applaud the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in their commitment to be more diversified in their minority outreaches.  Yet, here is the rub: and mind you, I do say this being a white Caucasian man of 33.  As the night went on, the knowledge of the current African-American issues and the white counterparts were becoming a bit much.  Now, it was supposed to become a bit much.  However, it appeared that we were watching a real life CB4 occur.

By that I mean, a lot of what was mentioned was brilliant and thoughtful.  None the less, for every two brilliant observations, thee were at least the same amount of questionable and awkward moments.  Once again even the awkward moments were unintentional, yet there they were.  For instance,  was there a need for Stacey Dash's appearance? I am not so sure putting forth an appearance from a rare Republican-oriented celebrity was successful.  Also, while I do applaud the quick and important pledge drive for audience members to donate $65,000 for the Girls Scouts; it did come on the same night a number of African-American artists, including Ava Duvernay, were hosting a fundraiser in Flint, Michigan in support of alleviating the poisoned water crisis.  The donated totals for that fundraiser were less than the amount of money donated to the Girl Scouts on Oscar night.

In addition, when the three young Asian-American men were presented as members of Price Waterhouse Coopers, I think the joke fell flat on its face.  Fortunately, that is about the only missteps I had noticed.  Pretty much everything else was on point and rather hilarious.  What might be found as awkward are moments I thought were brilliant.  Now, there is a big difference between the Oscars and the Grammys:  in the Oscars, the awards matter along with the show.  Indeed, the awards make the show and always have.

Well, I was not 100% on my predictions. Indeed, some of my predictions were way off.  So, you may be wondering, what do I think of these newly minted award winners?  On the surface, I have few to no complaints whatsoever.  None the less, were I to go category by category, here is what I would consider of these award winners.

Best Visual Effects: I was genuinely surprised to see Ex Machina win.  A damn good movie, one in which I hope more people will look at in the near future.  It was amazing how Alicia Vikander looked in that movie.

Best Film Editing:  No surprise it went to Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Makeup and Hairstyle:  Once again it was Mad Max: Fury Road

Best Production Design:  Mad Max: Fury Road won the award.  I had an idea it would go that route.

Best Sound Editing:  it was Mad Max: Fury Road once again.  I of course am quite pleased with the decision.

Best Animated Short Film:  This was one of the biggest surprises of the night.  I was expecting World Of Tomorrow to have won the award.  In its place the Oscar went to Bear Story, which is unique in it is the first Chilean movie to receive an Oscar of any sort.

Best Live-Action Short Film:  The award went to Stutterer, a short film which I was not certain would win the Oscar.  I was not expecting it, and indeed I have yet to see the short film.  Hopefully it is well made.

Best Documentary Short Subject: I was hoping Claude Lanzmann: Spectres Of The Shoah would have taken the all important prize.  Seeing as how Shoah is one of the most important movies in recent memory, one would have thought a recognition by the Academy would suffice after a considerably long wait for recognition.  None the less, the award and perhaps some financial funding for the film makers' next project was given to A Girl In The River: The Price Of Forgiveness.  I did indeed get to see the documentary when it was on HBO, and it is quite compelling.  In point of fact, the reaction to A Girl In The River is promising, with the hope that honor killings in Pakistan will be eliminated.  Perhaps I should have taken the impact of a documentary on a government as more important than a legacy of a great film and its astounding director.

Best Costume Design:  I was hoping Sandy Powell would have received her Oscar for her impressive designs in Carol.  Alas, the award went to costume designer Jenny Beavan for her designs used in Mad Max: Fury Road.  I have no complaints on this matter, as the designs were quite important to the visual aspect of Mad Max, all four of the films to be precise.

Best Sound Mixing:  I was under the assumption that Gary Rydstrom would have received another Oscar due to his involvement in Bridge Of Spies.  None the less, the award went to Chris Jenkins, Gregg Rudloff and Ben Osmo for their sound designs utilized in Mad Max: Fury Road.  This marked the sixth award Mad Max: Fury Road won, the most of any movie.  And again, it was quite an important aspect for one of the bravest action movies to come in at least my lifetime.

Best Documentary Feature:  I was really expecting the Joshua Oppenheimer film The Look Of Silence to be honored.  Interestingly, the award went to Asif Kapadia and James Gay-Rees for their film Amy.  Sadly, I have yet to see this interesting documentary on Amy Winehouse; on that matter, I had thought the Nina Simone biographical documentary What Happened, Miss Simone? would have taken the award.  Perhaps I should now see Amy.

Best Animated Film:  Interestingly, I did get to see Anomolisa just before the Oscars.  And I was equally impressed and even emotionally floored with Charlie Kaufman's newest movie.  Heck, I think Tom Noonan should have gotten a Best Supporting Actor nomination, and you will know why once you see it. None the less, I was pleased when Pete Docter won the award for his movie Inside Out.  Do go see Inside Out, both children and parents.  You will not regret the experience.

Best Foreign Language Film:  No surprise, it went to Laszlo Nemes and his debut movie Son Of Saul.  I have only seen clips of this movie, so I do hope to get to see the full movie fairly soon.

Best Original Score:  In a rather touching and meaningful gesture, Ennio Morricone won his First Oscar outside of an honorary one for his work in The Hateful Eight.  I still have not seen that movie yet, though I have listened to the score and it is fantastic. I am not certain if it is among his best, though an award of this magnitude is legitimate.

Best Original Song:  I thought it was a given that Lady Gaga and Diane Warren were to win the Oscar this year.  Gaga's performance of Till It Happens To You had me in tears.  In a surprising move, Sam Smith won the Oscar for his song The Writing's On The Wall, as heard in Spectre.  It is a decent song, and I do commend Sam Smith for his interesting writing and performing.  Yet, it is far from being even among the best James Bond songs.  In my opinion, this one is.

Best Cinematography:  Well, Emmanuel Luzbeki won his second Oscar involving The Revenant.  Well deserved, though I am now wondering if Roger Deakins will ever receive an Oscar now.  Yet, that is irrelevant, as Luzbeki is one of the best DPs in the business these days.

Best Original Screenplay:  I am extremely pleased that Tom McCarthy won this award for Spotlight.  I have been impressed with McCarthy's prowess ever since he was involved with The Wire; and we can now see that early period pay off well.

Best Adapted Screenplay:  In a rather brave and ballsy move, Adam McKay won for the screenplay based on Michael Lewis' book The Big Short.  I thought it was quite an impressive storytelling technique and was pleased with the overall messages displayed.  Indeed, The Big Short has led me to reconsider McKay's other films, both with Will Ferrell and on his own.  Mr. McKay is a very socially and politically keen filmmaker.

Best Supporting Actor:  I was hoping Tom Hardy would have won and I was expecting Sylvester Stallone to win.  So you can imagine that it came as a complete surprise to see Mark Rylance win for his involvement in Bridge Of Spies.  I liked Bridge Of Spies and consider it to be one of Steven Spielberg's better films from his more recent period.  I was also impressed with the screenplay which involved the Coen Brothers.  Indeed, Mr. Rylance stood out in a role which marks only the second time an actor won for a Steven Spielberg film.

Best Supporting Actress:  I thought Rooney Mara sould have been the winner, and while I did not see The Hateful Eight I did see Jennifer Jason Leigh in her moving role in Anomolisa and hoped an Oscar would have come for her.  Instead, it went to Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl.  I have yet to see that movie, and am aware that not everyone thought it was great.  I did however see Ex Machina, and was impressed with Ms. Vikander in that particular role. So for me, I feel Alicia Vikander won mainly for her role in Ex Machina, rather than The Danish Girl. In that regard, I can easily justify her Oscar win.

Best Actor:  Leonardo DiCaprio at long last won an Oscar in The Revenant.  Though I still think the Academy should have nominated more worthy candidates along with DiCaprio, including Michael B. Jordan, Abraham Atta, the cast of Straight Outta Compton, Jacob Tremblay and David Thewlis to name a few; Mr. DiCaprio deserved this Oscar and I a pleased with it.  To think, it has now been 25 years since he became a known actor, starting with one of the Critters movies.  How far we come.

Best Actress:  I liked Cate Blanchett and Saoirse Ronan in their movies, and think Charlotte Rampling is an underrated performer.  Yet I was happy to see Brie Larson win for her role in Room.  It is a most brilliant movie, and deserves the accolades it has received.  My only regret is that Jacob Tremblay was not nominated for Best Actor, and Joan Allen for Best Supporting Actress.  Of course Ms. Allen is well known, and I expect Ms. Larson and Mr. Tremblay to be well involved in films for years to come.

Best Director:  for the second year, the award went to Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu for his film The Revenant.  Mr. Innaritu is one of the most visually impressive filmmakers around today, and The Revenant was quite the master work.

Best Picture:  many times, a Best Director win means a Best Picture win.  So I was by the end of the night expecting The Revenant to collect the top prize.  Instead, Best Picture went to Spotlight, produced by Michael Sugar, Steve Golin, Nicole Rocklin and Blye Pagon Faust.  I have said before that Spotlight was the best movie I saw in 2015, and I am pleased the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences thinks the same way.  By the way, it is still in theaters and now on demand, as are many of the movies discussed in these past essays.  Do see them, and especially go see Spotlight.

Well, those are my thoughts on the Oscars this year, where social and political matters were rightfully at the forefront of the awards and ideas were presented.  I must say this needed to be published earlier.  None the less, I have been attempting to conjure what and how to respond to this ongoing political problem we call the 2016 Presidential Primaries.  It did make its way to the Oscars, of course.  None the less, we now have nine months for the election to take place.  And at some point, this will be warranted to be said when all heck breaks loose.

A more playful of the famous words Martin Lawrence uttered in Bad Boys 2.

Take care and more political discussions to come,

Robert

PS.  By all means, do go see CB4.  It is rather good and still topical.

Predicting the 2015 Oscars, Part 2

Now that we have gotten the lesser known but equally important Oscar categories out of the way, I think it is time to look at the other categories.  These categories are the ones everyone will be talking about by Monday morning.


Best Costume Design:

Not going to win: The Danish Girl
Might contend: Mad Max: Fury Road and The Revenant
Nominees to look for :
Sandy Powell, Carol
Sandy Powell, Cinderella

I believe Sandy Powell will win Best Costume Design, and it will be for Ms. Powell's impressive designs for Carol.  I honestly cannot see this award going to another costume designer for this year, as Ms. Powell was excellent last year.

Best Sound Mixing:

Not going to win: The Martian
Might contend: Mad Max: Fury Road, The Revenant, Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Nominee certain to win:
Gary Rydstrom, et al., Bridge Of Spies

At this point in the film industry, Gary Rydstrom may just be the most important and innovative sound engineer today.  And clearly Mr. Rydstrom was innovative yet again for his designs used in Bridge Of Spies, particularly in the 5.1 mix I heard in the theater and on Blu-Ray.

Best Original Song:

Not going to win: Simple Song #3, from Youth
Nominees to look for:
The Weeknd, et al., Earned It, from Fifty Shades Of Grey
Anohni Hegarty, et al., Manta Ray, from Racing Extinction
Lady Gaga and Diane Warren, Til It Happens To You, from The Hunting Ground
Sam Smith, et al., The Writing's On The Wall, from Spectre

I happened to like Earned It and Manta Ray, even though their respective movies left much to be desired.  Then again, The Weeknd is quite the good singer, and Anohni is someone that will likely get more notice stateside.  I happened to like Spectre, and of course Sam Smith is one of the best singers out there today.
None the less, Till It Happens To You happens to be one of Lady Gaga's most impressive songs; to say nothing of it being one of Diane Warren's best too.  I expect Gaga's performance to be one of the highlights of the show, as it was last year and most recently at the Grammys.  Indeed, Vice President Joe Biden will be introducing her performance in advocacy of the rights of victims of sexual assault.  And having seen The Hunting Ground, I am convinced this is the right way to honor the movie with a great song.

Best Documentary Feature:

Not going to win: Amy, Cartel Land, What Happened, Miss Simone?, and Winter On Fire: Ukraine's Fight For Freedom
Nominee certain to win:
Joshua Oppeneimer, et al., The Look Of Silence

Joshua Oppenheimer has brought forth a most amazing documentary that is a perfect companion piece to his 2012 film The Act Of Killing. I was most particularly impressed with the involvement and reporting taken place to expose the darker secrets of the 1965 purge of communists in Indonesia.  This documentary will certainly win.

Best Foreign language Film

Not going to win: Embrace Of The Serpent, Theeb, and A War
Nominees to watch:
Danize Gamze Erguven, Mustang
Laszlo Nemes, Son Of Saul

Son Of Saul will win best Foreign Language film this year.  It is not even close.  A rather innovative debut for Laszlo Nemes which I think will be looked at as one of the defining movies of 2015, and perhaps a defining anti-war movie.

Best Animated Film:

Not going to win: Boy & The World and Shaun The Sheep Movie
Nominees to watch:
Charlie Kaufman, et al., Anomolisa
Pete Docter, et al., Inside Out
Hiromasa Yonebayashi, et al., When Marnie Was There

I still have yet to see Anomolisa, and hope t see it fairly soon.  None the less, I thought Inside Out was one of the best films of 2015, and the best Disney and Pixar created in quite some time.  Inside Out will in all likelihood be the recipient of a much deserved Oscar.  By the way, if you have children; have them see Inside Out with you.  It will be beneficial for the young and old.

Best Original Screenplay:

Not going to win: Bridge Of Spies
Might pull off an upset: Straight Outta Compton
Nominees to watch:
Alex Garland, Ex Machina
Pete Docter, et al., Inside Out
Tom McCarthy, et al., Spotlight

I was completely blown away by Tom McCarthy's writing in Spotlight.  However, what Pete Docter accomplished with his team in creating Inside Out is astonishing.  It resonates to anyone that has seen this movie, and I hope that Inside Out can be a positive influence on anybody that is in a depressive state.  Again, I was completely impressed with the very intelligent writing.

Best original Score:

Not going to win: Thomas Newman, Bridge Of Spies
Contenders for the Oscar:
Carter Burwell, Carol
Ennio Morricone, The Hateful Eight
Johann Johannson, Sicario
John Williams, Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I have not yet seen The Hateful Eight, yet i did get to hear excerpts from Ennio Morricone's score.  It is quite good, and might win the Oscar.  I think that my sentimental pick would be John Williams, perhaps the most important composer of his field; apart from Mr. Morricone and Carter Burwell.  None the less, the score to any Star Wars movie is of such importance, that without it the movies fall apart.  So I am hoping John Williams will win the Oscar; yet I will not be upset if it goes to an equally deserving composer.

Best Cinematography:

Roger Deakins, Sicario
Edward Lachman, Carol
Emmanuel Lubezki, The Revenant
Robert Richardson, The Hateful Eight
John Seale, Mad Max: Fury Road

John Seale quite honestly should win Best Cinematography, in recognition of a most impressive and groundbreaking action-adventure film.  None the less, at some point Roger Deakins needs to get his much deserved Oscar.  I do wonder if Sicario will be the movie to end the streak.  It was shot very well too.

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Not going to win: Drew Goddard, The Martian: from the Andy Weir novel.

Contenders for the Oscar:
Adam McKay et al., The Big Short: from the Michael Lewis book.
Nick Hornby, Brooklyn: from the Colm Toibin novel
Carol: adapted from the Patricia Highsmith novel,, initially named The Price Of Salt
Emma Donoghue, Room: adapted from her novel.

All four contenders are worthy of an Oscar.  I would like to see Emma Donoghue win this important award, particularly in adapting her own novel to an excellent movie.  Truthfuly though, I would hope that Adam McKay and his team win the award for their highly intelligent and multi-layered script of The Big Short.

Best Supporting Actor:

Not going to win: Mark Rylance, Bridge Of Spies

Contenders for the Oscar:
Christian Bale, The Big Short
Tom Hardy, The Revenant
Mark Ruffalo, Spotlight
Sylvester Stallone, Creed

I personally would like to see Tom Hardy win Best Supporting Actor.  Mr. Hardy's presence in The Revenant was just completely astounding, and he held his own.  I also really liked Mark Ruffalo, whom I consider one of the better actors that can be involved with socially conscious films.

Yet, I think Sylvester Stallone will take home the Oscar this year.  Creed was one of the more pleasant surprises in 2015: a worthy follow up and an important addendum to the Rocky movies.  And Sylvester Stallone did a tremendous role which was surprisingly poignant once more.  Indeed in light of Tony Burton (Duke in the Rocky movies) having passed away just recently, I am convinced that Mr. Stallone is going to receive his long deserved Oscar.

Best Supporting Actress:

Not going to win:  Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl; and Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs

Contenders for the Oscar:
Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight
Rooney Mara, Carol
Rachel McAdams, Spotlight

Again, I have not seen The Hateful Eight yet; but I do like Jennifer Jason Leigh and would be pleased with her winning.  Having mentioned that, I was particularly impressed with Rooney Mara in her role in Carol.  In my opinion, this is a stunning role that I would hope gets Ms. Mara an Oscar.

Best Actor:

Not going to win: Bryan Cranston, Trumbo; Matt Damon, The Martian; Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs; and Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl.

Going to win:
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant

This is the one virtual lock for the Oscar season this year.  Mr. DiCaprio is long deserving of an Oscar, and honestly the competition this year is not as impressive.  Yet, Leonardo DiCaprio should prepare for his well deserved gold statue.

Best Actress:

Not going to win:  Jennifer Lawrence, Joy

Contenders for the Oscar:
Cate Blanchett, Carol
Brie Larson, Room
Charlotte Rampling, 45 Years
Soairse Ronan, Brooklyn

I have yet to see 45 years, though I do like Charlotte Rampling.  Having mentioned that, in a rather tight and impressive category, I think Brie Larson should win Best Actress this year.  It was quite revealing and impressive.

Best Director:

Lenny Abrahamson, Room
Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, The Revenant
Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
Adam McKay, The Big Short
George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road

It would be a ballsy and brave move for George Miller to win the Oscar.  I would hope Tom McCarthy gets this Oscar and some much deserved acclaim.  Yet, I will not be surprised to see Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu win a second consecutive Best Director Oscar.  A.G.I. is one of the most impressive and unique filmmakers of his or any era.  The Revenant certainly proves this ideal.

Best Picture:

Not going to win:  Steven Spielberg, et al., Bridge Of Spies, and Simon Kinberg and Sir Ridley Scott, et al., The Martian

Could pull off an upset:
Brooklyn
Room
Spotlight

Contending to win it all:

Brad Pitt, et al., The Big Short
George Miller, et al., Mad Max: Fury Road
Arnon Milchan and Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, et al., The Revenant

Once again, the ballsiest and most brave choice would be Mad Max: Fury Road.  My personal choice would be Spotlight.  None the less, the likely and more interesting Best Picture may be The Revenant.  Perhaps AMPAS is awarding Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu The Revenant and from last year Birdman due to the oversight of not honoring 21 Grams and Babel years ago; both of those movies having become modern classics.  Having mentioned that, Birdman and The Revenant are likely going to be modern new classics for many years to come.

I note this is last minute.  None the less, this is before the show begins.  So, now on with the show!  My responses to come in a timely manner.

Happy viewing,

Robert

Handicapping the Oscars, Year 2

On February 28, 2016, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will present the 88th annual Academy Awards; better known as the Oscars.  The past year in movies, 2015, was a watershed year in that matters pertaining to how films are distributed and what types of films should get nominations will the focal point for a discussion on the future of the industry.  In all fairness, I am not too certain what will be the future of Hollywood; though I suspect movies will always be around because it is the art form that has shaped our society for some 100 years now.

It is with this idea that I bring forth for the second year my thoughts on the nominations for each Oscar category, and who I think is most deserving of a statue.  Having seen many of the nominated movies, I can certainly attest to these films deserving of a nomination or perhaps even a win in their respective categories. Think of this as a continuation of what Siskel and Ebert had done every year with their hour-long special If We Picked The Winners.  And yes, every category will be looked into.

Best Visual Effects:
Ex Machina
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I am hoping the visual effects team from Star Wars: The Force Awakens gets the award. Yet I was quite impressed with the practical effects used in Mad Max: Fury Road.

Best Film Editing:
The Big Short
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant
Spotlight
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

In the same result as we see in Visual Effects, I would like to see either Star Wars: The Force Awakens or Mad Max: Fury Road take the prize.  A good action adventure film needs to have a competent and dedicated editor or editors to make the perfect cut for a movie.  These two films are clear examples of how editing is needed to make an audience enthralled with what they are seeing.

Best Make-Up and Hairstyle:
The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out The Window And Disappeared.
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant

I am more inclined to see The Revenant win this award.  The most impressive Make-Up jobs tend to be the ones that seem most realistic.  This is not to take away Mad Max: Fury Road in its approach to Make-Up and Hairstyle; yet The Revenant was more interesting.

Best Production Design:
Bridge Of Spies
The Danish Girl
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant

I would be pleased for either Mad Max: Fury Road or The Revenant winning this all important category.  Though I would prefer The Revenant due once again to its realistic approach to designs.

Best Sound Editing:
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Sicario
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Sound Editing is quite an important award in the process of cutting and splicing soundscapes and audio to enhance a movie.  How I see it, the Revenant did best in the approach to Sound Editing.  I was quite impressed with the results.

Best Animated Short Film:
Bear Story
Prologue
Sanjay's Super Team
We Can't Live Without Cosmos
World Of Tomorrow

I was very impressed with World Of Tomorrow.  Indeed, it is quite possibly one of the better experimental animated films to come out in recent years.  It is a near certainty that World Of Tomorrow will win Best Animated Short.

Best Live Action Short:
Ave Maria
Day One
Everything Will Be Okay
Shok
Stutterer

Shok seems to be the most interesting Short Subject to win this award.  It is a very good period piece regarding the war in Kosovo in the 1990s.

Best Documentary Short Subject:
Body Team 12
Chau, Behind The Lines
Claude Lanzmann, Spectres Of The Shoah
A Girl In The River: The Price Of Forgiveness
Last Day Of Freedom

I am hoping that Claude Lanzmann: Spectres Of The Shoah wins this category.  Shoah, though extremely long even for a documentary, is one of the better movies to have been released in some 40 years.  This seems to be the most proper way of rectifying the oversight.

Now that is part one of my look at the Oscar nominees this year.  The remaining categories are a bit more thorough to consider and thus, since this took me a while to finish, I have decided to present a part two which will be posted shortly.

More to come; stay tuned,

Robert

Bots 2.0: The Trend Reversal

Nine years ago, in 2007, I became aware of a internet trend that lasted quite a while.  It was in February of that year when I went on to Alex Jones' primary website Infowars.  For quite some time, even to a certain extant now; I would frequent the site and become immersed in getting the truth out regarding 911, the Middle East, and honestly the machinations of what Mr. Jones names the globalists.  On that specific day, Dr. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican member of the US House of Representatives on and off from March 1976 through late 2011, had come on the program to discuss future plans.  Those plans included running for President of the United States in 2008; this time solely as a Republican, as opposed to running in 1988 on the Libertarian line.

This prompted Alex Jones to declare that Dr. Ron Paul, admittedly a rare political figure well known as an expert on foreign policy, finance and medicine; was the only choice for President that would fix everything.  That was not exactly what he said, but it was effectively what was said.  Pretty soon, virtually every important alternative internet website and political weblog was clamoring and begging people to vote for Dr. Paul.  I never took the bait.  How I saw it; if a Presidential candidate is going to offer you every wish your heart desires, nothing will ever be delivered.  If a candidate does not promise anything, yet offers realistic solutions; that candidate is who you need to vote for.  It also seemed patently absurd that the voting public would replace a Cheney-Bush Republican Presidency with a Paul Presidency from the same political party.  The only reason Dr Paul was anti-war, I deduced, was due to the knowledge of America's finances being in a collapsing stage.  Dr. Paul not once has ever, to my knowledge, opposed many of these Middle East conflagrations on a moral merit solely. As well, Dr. Paul's libertarian viewpoint on economic policy is equivalent to an old polemic on political ideologies:

A liberal will see a homeless person and provide him money, food, a coat, and/or a gift to alleviate his plight.

A conservative will see a homeless person and give him a book and/or pamphlet of religious and conservative writings.  That is if the conservative does anything about the plight. of the homeless person.

A libertarian will see a homeless person and will ask that a wall be built in front of and in back of the homeless population so that he does not have to see them when he next walks down the street.  In short, out of sight out of mind.

Not surprisingly, it turns out that nearly the bulk of the internet media were libertarian minded.  And lo and behold, they found Dr. Ron Paul as their champion.  The internet was awash with incessant pandering to the Paul family and their advancement in our political world.  Dr. Paul and Sen. Rand Paul have taken this hero worship and ran with it unabashedly.  However, their policies can be debunked and ridiculed if one takes the time to actually do it.  In 2007, I believe Dr. Paul's campaign cratered when he appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert and Mr Russert was quite proficient in poking holes at Dr. Paul's policies.  In 2012, Dr. Paul's campaign began to fail yet again when this time prominent Democrats like Mayor Ed Koch forcefully examined the perceived Anti-Semitism inherent in the Paul family; which then got other Democrats to publicly give Dr. Paul the same scrutiny as any other Republican.

However, it was in the 2012 Presidential Campaign that the internet media lost any and all sense of objectivity in effectively forcing Dr. Ron Paul into the Republican nomination at any price.  It started with the contested results at the Iowa Caucus, which I will admit had been won by Sen. Rick Santorum in a rather dubious manner.  Any momentum the Paul campaign had was neutered the next week in New Hampshire.  Dr. Paul came in third at best, and Mitt Romney began his ascension to winning the GOP Nomination in states won, delegates and the national popular vote.  In a related matter, the Paul family could deal with Mr. Romney as the Republican nominee as opposed to all the others; even Sen. Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney.  But of course, the internet media, so much in the tank for Dr Paul for over 5 years by that point, would have none of it.  When the primaries were completed and before the RNC convention, numerous YouTube figures led by Matt Larson and similar bloggers led campaigns to have Dr. Paul become the nominee by packing the delegates with Paul supporters.  The theory of this being that the delegates to each state would be those that voted and campaigned for Dr. Paul; and thus, in their own accord, would unilaterally place Dr. Paul as the candidate and not the rightful winner of the primary in former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.  This was a complete fantasy, one in which I and many other political science people knew would never work.  It would have been a brokered convention by any other name; and voters would defect from the GOP in droves.

But even then they were still not done.  Days after the convention, Michael Rivero of What Really Happened led a call for Dr. Ron Paul to declare an Independent Presidential run and announce it on his Labor Day week appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.  I remember the calls and theories presented by these internet media types like Mr. Rivero throughout 2012; and was both amused and concerned over the more fantastical theories and hopes that had accumulated during the course of the year.  Well, by that point I had enough of at least Mike Rivero's tomfoolery.  Just before Dr. Paul's appearance on Leno, I wrote Mr. Rivero an e-mail telling him to effectively grow up and accept the loss.  I clearly asked him a question which no answer was needed:  did Rivero and co. want to have the Paul family in a rather volatile and bitter Holiday season if Dr. Ron Paul ran as an Independent while Sen. Rand Paul already endorsed Mitt Romney?  I would like to think that email helped in stopping Mr. Rivero's absurd thinking on these matters.  Neither WRH or other websites continued to drink the spiked punch afterwards, barring Ryan Dawson who has become rather embittered over the years.

Four years alter, and I am seeing this happen again.  Yet surprisingly this time, it is not the Republicans that are in this pickle.  It sadly is the Democrats.  For the past 16 years, if not more than that, the heir to the throne of the Democratic party and by extension the heir to leadership has been Sec. Of State Hillary Clinton.  I am one that believes Hillary Clinton should have run for President in 2000 rather than get elected to the US Senate: that way, everything that has happened in these past 16 years would not have happened.  After the 2012 election, which involved both Pres Obama and Mitt Romney resorting to e-vote fraud and resulted in a 50%-48% Obama victory; the immediate reaction should have been to allow Sec. of State Clinton to obtain the Presidency by Election Day 2016.  And for a while there in late 2012 and early 2013, that narrative was being utilized.  In fact, one YouTube poster projected that there would be two-term Democratic Presidents through at least 2048.  It would start with Sen. and Sec. Of state Hillary Clinton, then Sen. Cory Booker, then Chelsea Clinton and finally Malaia Obama.  That seems about right, and I would be accepting of this lineage.

However, the current President, Barack Obama, is not pleased.  For one, it it meant that two Clintons and Sen. Booker would get elected before the next Obama was elected.  Secondly, Hillary Clinton works in a different outlook than Democrats coming from Obama's coattails.  So what has followed, I think, has been for three years now a purging from within the Democratic Party of continuity. Starting with the Boston Bombing inside job, the Democrats have been loosing the social political and economic narrative; resulting in net losses for Democrats in elections.  This accumulated in 2014 when the Senate went to a 54-46 Senate Majority.  By the way, the Senate elections in 2016 are projecting a 52-48 Republican majority, a far cry from last year when it was assumed the Democrats could easily regain the Senate and perhaps even reach 60 Democratic Senators.

Knowing this, the Democratic Party would gain momentum and relevance with a Clinton Presidency.  And yet, it has not been the typical GOP gawkers that have been problem for the Clinton campaign, as it would be expected.  No, this time it is an insurrection of Democrats not ever having engaged in realpolitik.  For instance, there is Sen. Bernie Sanders running for the nomination and putting forth votes that are a mirage of ideas at best.  There is former Sen. Jim Webb running an Independent bid which, while not going that far, will put a dent in Election Day votes.  There is Vice President Joe Biden, who based on what Clinton insider Larry Nichols  has recently been saying, is running a shadow campaign for the Presidency just on the off chance that an indictment is handed out to Hillary Clinton over the fake e-mail scandals.  There is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has not endorsed anyone yet precisely because Sen. Warren believes she is best qualified to be President.  There is Gov. Jerry Brown from California whom has never been a Clinton ally.  And yes, there is Pres. Obama, who has not endorsed anyone yet.

The immediate focus, and by all means the Paul family for the Democrats this year, is Sen. Bernie Sanders.  As I type this on the day of the New Hampshire primary, Sen. Sanders lost Iowa by only a tenth of a percent and is looking to win New Hampshire.  Now, as I said before, President Bill Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire but went on to winning the Presidency in 1992; in 2016 I would suspect Hillary Cinton to easily win New York, California, South Carolina, Texas, North Carolina and many other states; enough to effectively seal the deal by early May when New York has its primaries.  Yet, I am not entirely seeing it this year.  Instead, I am seeing a second attempt at dismantling the rightful heir to the throne in Sec. of State Clinton by fellow Democrats.  It is known that the Republican Party could theoretically be content with a Clinton Presidency, as they were under Bill Clinton's time in office.  We all know hat a Sanders Presidency will involve complete political gridlock.  If you think nothing is being done now, wait until a four year long standstill reminiscent of The Zax.

Now that I finish this, I am noticing that Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders have won their respective primaries in New Hampshire.  Both of them have them won by landslides, which is more than 10% of the difference between first and second.  While I still think these outcomes will be corrected next week, I am not pleased with these results.  As well, when the tide does turn, we will be seeing Sanders supporters getting even more obtuse and wanting their candidate at all costs.  I am telling you all: Sen. Bernie Sanders being the nominee will mean Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent. And when that happens, you will have Trump, Gov. John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or even (gasp!) Jeb Bush as our President come election day.  We will be in ruins before this year is out.

We simply cannot afford another 9 11 or worse to occur.  We also cannot be the one developed nation to treat their women as fourth class citizens.  This needs to change soon.

I will have more to say in the days to come,

Robert

And the Oscar goes to...

It has been nearly a week since the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced the nominees for 2015 films in the next Oscars telecast on February 28.  This will be the 89th annual Academy Awards ceremony, the most prestigious and important night for the motion picture industry centered in Hollywood.  It also happens to be one of the few awards shows I tend to watch as much as I can: they easily run overtime.  So, what do I think of the nominations this year?

For the past three years, after Roger Ebert passed away, I have been attempting to see movies that I know will be excellent.  That fortunately results in getting to look at movies year round that are quite good and are easily Oscar caliber.  That is not to say there were some clunkers I saw this past year, but they were few and far between.  In this regard, I was able to see many of the nominated movies this past year; the most recent of which is the Lenny Abrahamson movie Room, which I highly recommend though it is not for the faint of heart.  A great deal of these movies that I saw have one thing in common:  the filmmakers and people involved with these movies are lily white mostly.  Half of the films I saw this year only had white people.  This was not a choice of mine; the fact is the bulk of what is considered best in 2015 were what we may consider white movies.  There are exceptions: the newest Spike Lee masterwork Chi-Raq, Straight Outta Compton, Creed, possibly Sicario, and I would surmise Star Wars: The Force Awakens.  Those movies dealt with issues and people that are minorities.  Let it be known, I have not yet seen Quentin Tarantino's new film The Hateful Eight.

I want to take notice of Chi-Raq for a moment.  Any one that has seen Spike Lee's latest joint would immediately consider this not only among the best of 2015, yet perhaps Mr. Lee's most coherent and innovative movie in recent years.  I tend to think all of Spike Lee's movies, including recent films like Oldboy, are interesting and innovative.  By the way, I hope the three hour plus director's cut of Oldboy is released soon enough.  Back to Chi-Raq, it was a marvelous film; Teyonah Parris is a star in the making, Nick Cannon can actually act, and anytime Angela Basset, Jennifer Hudson and Samuel L. Jackson appear in a movie of this sort you know to expect some of the best method acting around.

And I watched it on Amazon Prime.

Yes, Amazon Prime.  Indeed, Jeff Bezos of Amazon teamed with Spike Lee's 40 Acres And A Mule Filmworks along with Roadside Attractions in financing this film.  Rather than what would be perceived as a one time deal; online streaming and financing is going to be the future of how we view movies.  We are seeing this in the realm of American television, wherein Netflix, Amazon, Vimeo, YouTube, Apple and other providers are not only distributing shows; these businesses are financing newer talent and taking the risks to produce quality series that networks are not prone to carry.  As a result of the web's omnipresence, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (Golden Globes) and the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (Emmys) have allowed web shows to qualify for their respective awards.

Up to now, there has not been a need for the Oscars to look at this web presence.  However, that is going to change; what with Chi-Raq being shown on Amazon and Netflix co-financing Beasts Of No Nations, a movie I have not yet seen.  Rest assured, as the trend continues for most multiplexes to show only the movies guaranteed to fill the box office, more important and thoughtful films will be exhibited online first.  And I am sad to say, this will affect African-American cinema; notably non-action based films by African-Americans.  It is already a rare sight when a black culture film like Dear White People is able to be released to theaters nationwide, much less been seen willingly by white people.  I mentioned that when I saw that movie, which by the way also starred Teyonah Parris, there were about a dozen or so in the theater seeing it; maybe two people in there were white, including me.

This brings me to something that has been brought to my attention, along with others recently.  The membership of the Academy happens to be some 80% white, and 76% of that 80% being men.  The average minimal age for most Academy members is 60.  As well, as much as we do not like to admit this, nearly all Academy members have not gotten over the end of the New Hollywood era; that period of time when the studios and their parent companies allowed free reign in what movies were made. Thus, the voting members tend to look at awarding people from that time (1963-1993) or those that remind the voters of that time period.  A noble and understandable gesture; yet it has been 23 years since what I consider the end of New Hollywood, when Steven Spielberg changed course in his movies starting with Schindler's List.  I hope to explain why I think it marked an end of an era later on.

It is rather obvious that, in this post Roger Ebert, post movie house era of films, AMPAS will need to alter their membership and outlook.  There have been small steps recently, including Spike Lee receiving an honorary Oscar and Cheryl Boone Isaacs becoming the first female African American President of the Academy.  Yet those are just small measures; far more important will be issues pertaining to qualifications for movies shown online or on demand first.  This will go along with a greater emphasis on independent films and more avant garde choices.  Perhaps there will be a newer New Hollywood that can emerge.

That being said, what are my Oscar predictions?  Well in short, I thought the best movie of 2015 was the Tom McCarthy directed Spotlight.  Quite obviously, Spotlight is a movie that fits the paradigm of what New Hollywood represented, and has the ability to show risk taking in a blockbuster or nothing environment.  It is my hope that Spotlight wins Best Picture, Tom McCarthy wins Best Director, and Mr. McCarthy along with Josh Singer win Best Original Screenplay at least.  I would like to see Leonardo Dicaprio win Best Actor in The Revenant, and I do hope Brie Larson or Soairse Ronan win Best Actress in either Room or Brooklyn, respectively.  I have not yet seen the Charlotte Rampling movie 45 years, yet I do consider Ms. Rampling to be one of the more iconic screen presences in her lifetime.  I think Rooney Mara should win Best Supporting Actress in Carol, though I have yet to see the Quentin Tarantino film The Hateful Eight which nabbed Jennifer Jason Leigh her first nomination.  Mind you, I did like Rachel McAdams in Spotlight.  And this might be a bit controversial; yet I think Tom Hardy is most deserving of a Best Supporting Actor win in The Revenant. Though of course, Mark Ruffalo is a great actor himself, particularly in Spotlight.

  Best Adapted Screenplay is a bit of a push: I liked what Emma Donoghue accomplished in writing her own screenplay to Room based on her novel.  I was also amazed at Adam McKay and Charles Randolph adapting Michael Lewis' book The Big Short into an impressive film.  Either one would be fine by me.  Best Cinematography should go to Roger Deakins who shot Sicario, though I would also think John Seale for his involvement with Mad Max: Fury Road would be a wise choice.  Best Editing should go to Margaret Sixel who edited Mad Max: Fury Road, though I was impressed with Tom McArdle and his approach to cutting Spotlight.  And I would like to see Carter Burwell finally win an Oscar for his musical score used in Carol.

There are of course other nominees and other categories to consider.  And I will be doing that in the week or so running up to the February 28 awards ceremony.  Right now, these are my inferences and hopes for who will take home the prize.  Just to let it be known: I will be watching and I do hope to either live blog the event or perhaps even record my reactions on video while it is still ongoing.  I commit to not delaying the live blogging like what happened last year; albeit that was also due to getting laid off from my previous job the day after last year's Oscars.  This time should be quite different.

One other thing I want to mention.  I am a subscriber to YouTube's Red paid membership site.  I am pleased that I can see content that otherwise would be restricted or ad driven on the free site.  None the less, I am hoping YouTube Red will be allowed to start streaming movies through the subscription service.  As of now, some movies of importance are allowed without paying extra.  Most of these films though are of this quality.

These are the sorts of films I watch when snow weekends are here.

One more week until the first primaries: stay tuned for my thoughts,

Robert

And then I woke up...

Something has been on my mind for a while now.  It deals with breakups and reunions.  I suppose this started when the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame announced 5 of their inductees for 2016.  Of the 5, only Steve Miller is going in individually.  Albeit, this will be the first induction for Dr. Dre when the rap super group N.W.A. get inducted this year; Dr. Dre will likely go in on his own shortly after.  So that leaves us with three active bands that could reunite with past members.


Cheap Trick in its current incarnation (Robin Zander, Rick Nielsen, Tom Pettersson and Dax Nielsen) are probably going to reunite with an original member (Bun E. Carlos).  Of course, this will not be easy; Carlos' interview with Rolling Stone magazine explains why.

Chicago will be for this one time reuniting with Peter Cetera.  Indeed, Mr. Cetera has been willing to initiate the summit.

Deep Purple is the clear uncertainty.  I am not sure if they will perform, and obviously Ritchie Blackmore is someone that will make sure bridges stay burned.

With that in mind, a similar hypothetical reunion is taking place at Coachella in April.  This is to go with the actual LCD Soundsystem reunion James Murphy has decided.  I am speaking of course on the purported Guns N Roses reunion.  For any GNR fan that is anxiously waiting for Axl Rose and Slash to be on the same stage in 23 years: do not hold your breath.  We will know it when we see it.

Like minded people come together when it appears joining forces will be most beneficial to create magic.  And there are times when someone decides to get involved with a budding or established project, hoping to improve upon the concept and add their input.  And yet, it only lasts for so long.

I think back to the era of the great american songbook; when Broadway was the place to be to hear new standards in song craft along with acting.  It was also the time when movie musicals were the highest form of entertainment for the masses.  It was an era of songwriting partnerships, buoyed by the likes of Rodgers and Hart along with Kern and Hammerstein.  The partnership of Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart was one of the better songwriting tandems for some 24 years.  By all means, Rodgers' melodies and Hart's sophisticated lyricism were the standard for proper collaborative songwriting.  And yet, Lorenz Hart had some difficulties in his life: namely not freely revealing his sexuality and coupled with his chronic alcoholism.  Just before Hart died in 1943, the Rodgers and Hart partnership had ended due in no small part to Richard Rodgers no longer finding the nerve to put up with Lorenz Hart's increasing erratic behavior.  Sadly, the loss of the partnership and Hart's mother earlier in the year prompted Mr. Hart to go on a two day drinking binge which ended in his death on an operating table on November 22, 1943.

Though not having the same amount of years or even exclusivity, Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II were frequent collaborators for some 15 years.  By that point, Kern had the most impressive lyricist to work with and Hammerstein had the most interesting composer to be involved with.  That partnership ended at about the same time the Rodgers and Hart team disbanded, albeit Jerome Kern had other partnerships and interests to attend to. Thus in 1943, Oscar Hammerstein II became the lyricist for a project Richard Rodgers had started with Lorenz Hart but later needed to be changed.  The ensuing musical was Oklahoma.  For 17 years onward, Rodgers and Hammerstein held a partnership that eclipsed their other collaborations with other songwriters.  Several great musicals came from this tandem; not to mention a considerable amount of songs to add to the great songbook.

Rodgers and Hammerstein's partnership ended in 1960 when Hammerstein passed away from stomach cancer.  Throughout the remainder of his life, Richard Rodgers would collaborate with other noted lyricists.  And yet, while the songs were quite good, Rodgers never did reach the same heights as he did with Hart and Hammerstein.  Yet in a way, the fact that two well established and acclaimed songwriters teamed up and eclipsed their past partnerships was a better fit to combine their fine artistry.

I then think back to a band that formed in the late 1960's and were making inroads with an increasing popularity by the middle 1970's.  It was 1974-1975 and Genesis had completed a 2 LP concept album that is still considered their peak of creativity: The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway.  The making of the album was not an ideal setting to begin with, wrangling over the writing and creative process.  Yet in all fairness, The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, like much of Genesis' output up till then, was pretty much Peter Gabriel's idea.  Indeed on The Lamb, Gabriel wrote the liner notes and story, wrote all lyrics except for one song which Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford wrote, wrote half of the title track with Banks, composed music for a few songs solely (namely The Carpet Crawlers), helped in producing the album and being credited with, along side singing, voices and flute "variations on the above and experiments with foreign sounds".  By that it meant, Peter Gabriel either overdubbed and/or played live every instrument and new soundscapes at any given point.

Starting around Thanksgiving and continuing through May 1975, Genesis went on tour with an elaborate stage show; which was fully functioning maybe 20% of all the shows.  They performed the whole album live and in sequence, buoyed by Gabriel's singing, costume changes and iconic stage presence.  This created a long simmering schism between Steve Hackett, Tony Banks, Mike Rutherford and Phil Collins on one end and Peter Gabriel on the other end.  That may not be entirely fair to say this: Gabriel and Hackett collaborated often enough and Banks, Rutherford and Gabriel began their music careers as schoolchildren.  And, despite what some may say, Gabriel and Collins were quite chummy with each other.  Still, the concerts and ensuing media attention focused on Peter Gabriel to the exclusion of the other Genesis members.  As well, a schism had emerged with respect to the band's approach of their songs and albums through 1975.  It still persists, with some of the Genesis members (namely Tony Banks) having clear reservations on the Lamb yet applauding everything else; while Peter Gabriel feels Supper's Ready and The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway (the whole album and tour) were the high watermarks of his Genesis years and not thinking as highly on the other songs and albums.

The tour ended in early May, and with that so did Peter Gabriel's tenure in Genesis.  Steve Hackett left in 1977 based on similar artistic differences approached regarding Wind And Wuthering.  In all honesty, the four man lineup and the three man lineup were more commercially rewarding and artistically interesting.  I happen to like all Genesis eras, including the Calling All Stations late 1990's period when Ray Wilson was in the band in place of Phil Collins.  Indeed, I think Genesis were able to last as long as they did due to averting a band implosion with Gabriel leaving when he did.  I also feel Steve Hackett was able to expand his horizons by leaving Genesis.

And then of course, there is Peter Gabriel.  It has been 41 years since Mr. Gabriel left Genesis, and not once has he felt the need to go back.  Indeed, since 1979, although it has been hinted at, Peter Gabriel when he performs live does not perform any Genesis song.  Honestly, he does not need to.  Peter Gabriel's influence and excellence has eclipsed the influence and excellence of Genesis, a feat that does not often happen.  Look at it this way: Peter Gabriel has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice; with Genesis in 2010, and on his own in 2014.  He did not attend the Genesis induction, yet accepted and performed at his own induction four years later.  In fact, the presenter, Chris Martin, mentioned Genesis a lot more than Peter Gabriel did (once in his speech, in passing.)  And that is quite alright, in part because a reunion of the classic lineup of Genesis involving Gabriel has no chance of ever happening.

Even when there are reunions of the five, as can be seen in the documentary Sum Of The Parts; everyone is quite nice and all, yet Banks, Rutherford and Collins pretty much have no intention of willingly allowing Gabriel and Hackett to be the lead figures in detailing the history.  Heck, Steve Hackett's post Genesis work was completely overlooked in the documentary.  And it felt like the interviewees were going over Peter Gabriel's individual works only because they really had to.  I can remember watching it on Showtime and the obvious realization that the Genesis that made The Lamb have no intention of ever reuniting in full probably sunk in more than any other time.

Those are just two examples.  In the end for both examples, the breakup of one partnership signaled the beginning of more fruitful experiences with either other partnerships or more often finding greater rewards and artistic merit as individuals.  I can understand that as well.  Not long ago, I became involved with groups and organizations that came at the right time for my growth and experience.  It went all so very well; this included some really great days and events to remember.  Everything went into an orderly and functioning process that involved budding friendships and a sense that the partnerships would last .

And then I woke up...

When I did, then and now,  newer options came about.  And it became clear that the partnerships and groupings had ended.  Reluctantly or with hope, we realize that we must change partners yet again

Do not worry, fellow readers.  I am still here and still blogging; perhaps that long-awaited video and multimedia output for future essays and commentaries will happen.  What I mentioned is relative to a a community involvement that has run its course.  This weblog has not and will never run its course!

Talk to you all sooner than later,

Robert

PS.  The Oscar nominations were announced two days ago.  And yesterday, I saw The Revenant.  I will have a lot more to say on these matters shortly.

20 Answers before the Eve of Christmas (Give or Take a few days)

Last week, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame announced who were the five top vote getters in the Performers category for their class of 2016.  This means these five artists are definitely getting inducted, with perhaps more to come in other categories.  The five artists are:

N.W.A:  This will be the first of two inductions for Dr. Dre; I expect him to get inducted on his own, probably as a Non-Performer in a couple years time.  Also going in as part of N.W.A. will be Ice Cube, Eric "Eazy-E" Wright (1964-1995), MC Ren, DJ Yella and Arabian Prince.

Chicago:  Including the inductions of Terry Kath (1946-1978) and Peter Cetera.

Deep Purple:  Inducted would be Ritchie Blackmore, Ian Gillan, Jon Lord (1941-2012), Roger Glover, Ian Paice, David Coverdale, Glenn Hughes, Steve Morse, Don Airey, Rod Evans, Nick Simper, Joe Lynn Turner and Tommy Bolin (1951-1976).  Not included is Joe Satriani; he was never really a member of Deep Purple and is more than likely to get inducted one day on his own, probably as a Sideman.

Steve Miller

Cheap Trick

Since the announcement, there have been a number of bone headed moves and odd reasons given for why this is the leading artists for induction next year, and other issues that come with the territory of the RRHOF.  Indeed, on Sunday, the webmasters at Future Rock Legends posted on their blog page 20 questions regarding this year's named inductees and the future of the RRHOF.  It is intended to be posted in public so that those that run the Hall of Fame (Jann Wenner, Jon Landau, Joel Peresman and Greg Harris to name four) can provide the answers and give transparency in their voting and induction methods.

I should come out and say this:  I doubt any of the four, including Jon Landau but especially Jann Wenner, will answer these questions.  For myself, having been a regular poster and participant in elections on the Future Rock Legends website, I figured that since no one in the leadership will likely respond; here then are my answers to these questions.

My assumption as to why there are only five Performers inductees instead of six, which is still small since we at FRL have inducted seven Performers per year into our Rock Hall Project:  This may have been suggested by HBO along with Play Tone (Tom Hanks' production company) to have the telecast go within 3 and a half hours and attempt to lessen the editing of speeches and performances.  The ceremony is not broadcast live.  It does indeed revert back to a sense of creating a massive backlog that I had hoped was starting to ease since 2012.

Perhaps only having 5 inductees as Performers will in turn shorten the ceremony, subsequently fitting the time alloted for the HBO telecast.

The Barclays Center is quite the state of the art arena, one that is indeed expanding in importance since the New York Islanders have now called Barclays home.  As well, Jay-Z owns a percentage of the arena; perhaps this is a second test run for when Jay-Z one day gets inducted in the arena he calls home turf.

I am rather aghast that Nick Simper, Steve Morse, Don Airey, Joe Lynn Turner and Tommy Bolin are not yet listed as inducted members of Deep Purple.  I do think, if there are no goof ups, this was an intentional act by the hall of fame for a particular reason.  Mark II and III are fully in, yet Mark I are 4/5ths in mainly as a way to somehow entice Rod Evans to show his face in public after 35 years.  Well, that is not going to happen; and here is why.

To discuss this stupid and asinine move would be an essay in itself.  Suffice to say, Ritchie Blackmore in particular became so incensed that he and the band's attorneys cut off Evans' royalties.  Yes, Blackmore has a problem with most people but he does have a legitimate gripe against Evans.  As do most Deep Purple fans.

Steve Miller, under himself or as part of Steve Miller Band, has always had the focus be upon him.  This is most true once Boz Scaggs went on to do his own thing.  I can hardly name off the top of my head every person involved in the Steve Miller Band, and neither in fact can most RRHOF voters.  So, the easiest and most honest route is to induct Steve Miller, and not the backing Band whichever it may be.

It is absolutely certain that bands with complicated memberships seem to have more trouble getting inducted than bands with clear lineups, even if only classic lineups.  It is perhaps one reason why King Crimson is not yet inducted, and the same goes with Megadeth.  Those are just a couple examples.

I do not who these "experts" might be to determine honorees in a band. I wold not be surprised if these "experts" include someone's father's sister's brother's nephew's cousin's doctor's roommate.  In other words, a complete unknown.

The fan poll, I think, is utilized as a way to determine who will be inducted.  Since 2012, most of the Performers inductees per year from 2013 onwards has been determined by who eventually gets to be on the fan ballot.  For 2013 and 2014, 4 out of the top 6 on each fan ballot was inducted.  In 2015, it was 5 out of 6.  In 2016, it is 4 out of 5.  As well, each artist that led the fan ballot (Rush, Kiss, Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble, and Chicago) all got inducted.  It appears that more often than not, the fan ballot is what determines the sort of inductees that will be presented in each class.  It would not surprise me if the official 'experts" that receive a ballot also vote on the fan ballot.

As has been determined in post October 15th voting and voting on the Future Rock Legends website, Yes and Janet Jackson respectfully led each poll and by all rights should have gotten inducted.  However, I believe it was determined that 2016 would be the year for classic rock and a high percentage of 1970s based acts.  In particular, since Chicago, Steve Miller and Cheap Trick were first time nominees, lifelong fans of these artists who also are tech savvy elected to bot the voting.  Most of the bot votes went to Chicago.  Now, I do not have a problem with Chicago getting inducted, nor any of the named inductees so far.  Yet I do think the RRHOF allowed the tainting of the vote to be enacted primarily to enforce a Peter Cetera reunion with Chicago at least.

As I mentioned before, the fan vote adds a lot more teeth if, and I think it has happened, people with an actual ballot get to also vote on the fan ballot.  So that one vote on the fan ballot ideal gets tossed aside when Voting Committee members place their votes online on the fan ballot for all to see.

I do not think in past years this sort of chicanery was utilized.  In 2015 though, it may have been used on an experimental scale in order to legitimize fan support for an induction of Paul Butterfield and The Paul Butterfield Blues Band.  Since the Butterfield experiment proved a success (and mind you, I felt he should have gotten in before he passed away), it seemed that this experiment could be utilized to have fan support be named for at least a few of the nominees.  The fact that by October 15 Chicago received some 20 million votes, most of it by bots, and two months later the inductees were announced shows that this ballot was completely flawed.

For the record, I do not receive a ballot and thus I am not on the Voting Committee.  In truth, aside from known inductees who have a ballot and vote on it, along with several other names, I do not know every person who gets a vote.  It very well could be hacks and lackeys.  Sadly, I also do not see much gender diversity in who might be added to the Voting Committee.  It is a bit sad, considering the gradual rise of female artists and pioneers in rock and pop music in the past half century.

I have know idea how and why Gary Dell'Abate received an official ballot.  Being a Steely Dan fan and having an admittedly nice home theater does not say to me that this man needs a ballot.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has a gender diversity problem.  By comparison, our most recent projected Rock Hall Project inductees, while not as much as I would like, inducted Mariah Carey and Pat Benatar this past October.  By the way, Ms. Carey and Ms. Benatar have not yet been seriously Considered by the Nominating Committee as of yet.  I would request the RRHOF conduct a special election and ballot for this coming new year consisting solely of female candidates and female inductees.  Indeed, if I had a ballot for 10 female inductees, mine would look like this:

Mariah Carey
Pat Benatar
Janet Jackson
Whitney Houston
The Runaways
Siousxie Sioux
Carole Kaye
Joan Baez
Sister Rosetta Tharpe
Connie Francis

All were inducted into our Rock Hall Project, yet not the actual Hall of Fame.  That is not right.

I tend to believe the NomCom should have final say on who will eventually be inducted.  The Voting Committee apparently are best used as a recommendation body, not a voting body.

I would tend to believe that less than half of the 800 ballots were returned.  Perhaps even lesser than years before after the fan vote bots locked in the fan ballot.

The voted were likely counted by a computer software of some kind.  I also doubt that the voting ballot totals will be released to the public.

As mentioned before, it appears that the RRHOF wanted enforced reunions of three different groups (Peter Cetera with Chicago, Ritchie Blackmore with Deep Purple, Cheap Trick with their past drummer).  The Cheap Trick reunion might happen, though it will not be easy.  I doubt Ritchie Blackmore appears at the ceremony, and while Peter Cetera could entertain the idea of reuniting with Chicago for a final time; Mr. Cetera has not felt the need to reunite in the past 30 years.  The Kiss reunion uncertainty in 2014 only involved One act.  2016 has Three acts that people want to see a reunion at any cost.  As for N.W.A,, a reunion of surviving members, including Dr. Dre, has always been on the offering so no problem there.

We all assume the remaining inductees will be announced early in the new year.  I am not sure who gets inducted through other means, though I assume they will generate a lot of needed buzz.  I am guessing the RRHOF do not want a second Ringo Starr situation when the inductee that was not on a nominating ballot gets to be the headliner.

This may sound absurd, yet i think the RRHOF made the decision to scrap the Los Angeles location for one in New York due to the every several years weather pattern El Nino.  A pattern in which the West Coast gets colder and wetter, and the East Coast remains wet yet far milder.  We just noticed this peculiarity when on Christmas Eve, New York City was in the upper 60s.  Fortunately, this will not last long and is expected to be considerably colder in the days and months and even years to come.  I say years because after an El Nino there is a La Nina.  Not to mention there has been a methane gas leak off the coast of California that has only been given nationwide attention on Christmas Eve: after 6 weeks of leakage!  To give you an idea, methane is far more dangerous than carbon dioxide.  So, environment, weather patterns and short sighted ideals have the ceremony now taking place in New York.   Perhaps next year the ceremony will return to Los Angeles.

Well, since I doubt you will get official answers from Jann Wenner, Jon Landau and Co., I do hope these answers I gave will suffice.  I was going to finish this before Christmas Eve; yet dinners, parties and a far amount of gifts I received made this get posted at this time,  Leave it to the Holiday season to receive much desired gifts like new Roger Waters and David Gilmour films and albums, a new LP player, two more vinyl LPs and finally getting the Beatles on music streaming services like Apple Music.  And that is just rock and roll and music related.

Any comments and/or questions are greatly encouraged and appreciated.

Talk to you all sooner than later,

Robert